Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 1984
This case concerns the issue of whether the two Petitioners as competing Certificate of Need applicants should be granted Certificates of Need to construct and operate psychiatric health care facilities in Panama City, Florida. Psychiatric Hospitals of America, Inc., hereafter referred to as PHA, proposes a 50-bed specialty psychiatric hospital with a 15 bed crisis stabilization bed unit. Hospital Corporation of America, hereafter referred to as HCA, proposes a 60-bed psychiatric pavilion to be operated in conjunction with its existing facility, Gulf Coast Community Hospital. The applications of both Petitioners were originally denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in December 1982 and both Petitioners appealed the respective denials. Those appeals were consolidated in this case for a comparative hearing on the merits. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner, PHA, called as witnesses, Maurie Pressman, M.D., Martha Lindeman, John Mason, M.D., A. Gary Muller, Steven DeRosa, Michael J. Boling, Carl Massara, and F. D. Goldberg. The Petitioner, HCA, called as witnesses, Thomas McClure, Nat Winston, M.D., Rodney Van Pelt, Kent Miller, Ron Schwartz, Edward Johnson, Charles Rogers, and Elbert Garner. The Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, called as its witness, Mr. Thomas Porter. The Department offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits. PHA offered and had admitted 16 exhibits. HCA offered and had admitted into evidence 18 exhibits. Helen Ingram, County Commissioner for Bay County and member of the District IIA Mental Health Board, appeared as a public witness and Clo Haddaway, a former member of the District IIA Mental Health Board, submitted a written statement which was marked as Hearing Officer Exhibit No. 1. Subsequent to the final hearing, counsel for the Petitioners and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.Revocation for licensed general lines agent who engaged in dishonest and fraudulent practices and for misappropriation of insurance premium payments.